Subject: [Disman] ping-mib-1

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 16:35:54 +0100

Dear all,

I'm editing a new version of the remote operations MIBs.
Besides a number of editorial issues I found three issues
that I want to discuss on the list, one for each MIB module.

Here is the first one. In the PING MIB there is a
contradiction in the definition of

pingCtlTrapGeneration OBJECT-TYPE
    SYNTAX      BITS {
                   probeFailure(0),
                   testFailure(1),
                   testCompletion(2)
                  }
    MAX-ACCESS  read-create
    STATUS      current
    DESCRIPTION
        "The value of this object determines when and if
        to generate a notification for this entry:

        probeFailure(0)   - Generate a pingProbeFailed
            notification subject to the value of
            pingCtlTrapProbeFailureFilter.  The object
            pingCtlTrapProbeFailureFilter can be used
            to specify the number of successive probe failures
            that are required before a pingProbeFailed
            notification can be generated.
        testFailure(1)    - Generate a pingTestFailed
            notification. In this instance the object
            pingCtlTrapTestFailureFilter can be used to
            determine the number of probe failures that
            signal when a test fails.
        testCompletion(2) - Generate a pingTestCompleted
            notification.

        The value of this object defaults to zero, indicating
        that none of the above options have been selected."
    ::= { pingCtlEntry 13 }

The last sentence of the DESCRIPTION clause refers to a default
value for which none of the option is selected.  Such a value
is not defined.  Also there is no DEFVAL clause.

I see alternatives to fix this:

1. We can just remove the last sentence from the DESCRIPTION clause.
   Then we would not have a value for this object that allows to
   disable generation of Notification in all cases.

2. We can add a value none(4), add DEFVAL { none }, and replace
   "zero" by "none(4)" in the last sentence of the description clause.

3. We can leave the DESCRIPTION clause almost unchanged and renumber
   the values:
    SYNTAX      BITS {
                   none(0),
                   probeFailure(1),
                   testFailure(2),
                   testCompletion(3)
                  }

Does anyone has a strong preference or another solution of this issue?

Thanks,

    Juergen
-- 
Juergen Quittek        [email-masked]       Tel: +49 6221 90511-15
NEC Europe Ltd.,       Network Laboratories        Fax: +49 6221 90511-55
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany   http://www.ccrle.nec.de